Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[antcollinet]

Remove the word "genuinely" and in its place insert the word "supposedly", and the statement will be correct.

I disagree. They are genuinly hearing a difference. It is just that difference is generated in the brain.

If you object to "hear", taking the view that involves ears only, rather than the full auditory system, you could replace "hear" with "perceive"

 

[Jim Taylor]

I disagree. They are genuinly hearing a difference. It is just that difference is generated in the brain.

Point taken. However, for the purposes of the comparison that I made with superstitions, I think the change in wording is sufficient, even if imperfect. Agreed?

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

They're hyperfocusing on particular sound characteristics after the component swap, then accepting it as an actual difference from the first component, but in reality the same
characteristics were present with the first component

 

[Sal1950]

They're hyperfocusing on particular sound characteristics after the component swap, then accepting it as an actual difference from the first component, but in reality the same
characteristics were present with the first component

That's why Bias Controlled DBT is required.
After hearing the improved detail, etc on first listening, but then going back and forth under blind conditions, the
listener realizes that same detail was there all along.

 

[SIY]

That's not really a response based on science. Can you cite a well-researched rebuttal?

Oohashi has been beaten to death here. It's utter nutbaggery, incapable of replication except by Oohashi and his students. A quick forum search will (one hopes) save you from running down that rabbit hole.

 

[Mnyb]

As I have gotten more into the hobby like everyone else I have read and seen endless commentary around DAC signatures. From the start it has always been impossible for me to notice any difference between DACs. Indeed, every DAC I have have trialed at home or at audio meetups must have been audibly transparent because I have never heard a difference. I initially thought I might have some problem with my hearing or that there might be variability across humans in their ability to interpret sound. There are variabilities in ear and ear canal shape so why can't there be differences between how how one person's brain interprets sound versus another?

I initially felt like an outlier, and this site was helpful in parsing through the BS. I find it interesting that there are so many people genuinely hearing a difference when even if I try I cannot. And I count it as a blessing as it's likely going to save money which I can devote to things that actually do make a difference like better speakers!

One other point around DAC signatures has also struck me as odd. Even if you submit DACs have different sound signatures, surely the setup of your listening area and your speaker selection will be many multiples more impactful than the DAC right? If a well-measured DAC has a THD of 0.0005% and a well-constructed speaker has 0.5% across most of the frequency spectrum, the speaker's distortion on the sound signature is 10,000x times the DAC's no? And even the speaker's distortion pales in comparison to whether the washing machine is running in the kitchen above my listening room! How could a DAC's signature EVER matter when the scale of impact we are talking about is so small relative to the other links in the audio chain?

And also the recording itself almost any DAC is better than album you play ! It especially funny when someone uses a Jazz recording from 1960 to “reveal” differences in texture and timbre of the DAC

Currently I don’t have the slightest idea what terrible DAC’s and abomination for amps I enjoy as I have active digital speakers
They sounds just great the KEF LS60 .

Same with my previous Meridian DSP5000 not the slightest idea of what DAC I was “listening” to .

 

[antcollinet]

Oohashi has been beaten to death here. It's utter nutbaggery, incapable of replication except by Oohashi and his students. A quick forum search will (one hopes) save you from running down that rabbit hole.

That's not really a response based on science. Can you cite a well-researched rebuttal?

Perhaps to save you one of those searches:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

So we are not accepting the research by Oohashi on inaudible higher frequencies affecting the brain? I win my bet! 50 quatloos to me! If that research is dismissed here then that is not a great look for the people of this forum because you can easily try the experiment for yourselves...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[MaxBuck]

Perhaps to save you one of those searches:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

So we are not accepting the research by Oohashi on inaudible higher frequencies affecting the brain? I win my bet! 50 quatloos to me! If that research is dismissed here then that is not a great look for the people of this forum because you can easily try the experiment for yourselves...

audiosciencereview.com

Thanks. And I understand the antipathy toward the Oohashi "research" that appears to have been pretty thoroughly discredited by knowledgeable professionals, though it's perhaps worth noting that he and his colleagues have had followup research published in Nature on several occasions. But it's important to remember that a flawed study suggesting that ultrasonic frequencies can have psychological effects doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.

Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome. There are many who believe that the Havana Syndrome is a hoax, surely. There are also many who believe otherwise. I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem." And that's all I mean to say or imply here.

 

[Chrispy]

Thanks. And I understand the antipathy toward the Oohashi "research" that appears to have been pretty thoroughly discredited by knowledgeable professionals, though it's perhaps worth noting that he and his colleagues have had followup research published in Nature on several occasions. But it's important to remember that a flawed study suggesting that ultrasonic frequencies can have psychological effects doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.

Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome. There are many who believe that the Havana Syndrome is a hoax, surely. There are also many who believe otherwise. I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem." And that's all I mean to say or imply here.

Kinda out there one way or the other with information at hand....

 

[antcollinet]

doesn't mean that they DO NOT EVER have such effects.

The statement "all things are possible" regretfully omits the qualifier "but most of those possibilities - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - are so low in probability that they can be safely ignored.

In other words there is no point in considering possibilities or conjectures for which there is no reliable evidence or observations supporting them. That way lies Russell's teapot.

Or put it another way. Anyone can invent out of thin air an infinity of evidence free things that might be possible. Are we really going to waste a shred of effort thinking about any of them? Let alone all of them.

 

[Chrispy]

The statement "all things are possible" regretfully omits the statement "but most of those possibilities - in the absense of evidence to the contrary - are so low in probability that they can be safely ignored.

In other words there is no point in considering possibilities or conjectures for which there is no reliable evidence or observations supporting them. That way lies Russell's teapot.

Or put it another way. Anyone can invent out of thin air an infinity of evidence free things that might be possible. Are we really going to waste a shred of effort thinking about any of them? Let alone all of them.

Nice

 

[kemmler3D]

Obviously our Department of Defense continues to investigate this phenomenon and its possible implications relative to the Havana Syndrome.

Ultrasound beamed into someone's skull at sufficient amplitude to cause injury is ... with any luck... out of scope for home music listeners.

I think it's clear that the science relating to human response to sonic waves outside the frequency range characterized as audible does not qualify as a "solved problem."

Depends on what you mean by "solved", but it's close.

Even if you assume we can hear as well at 40khz as we do at 20khz (we don't, but if we did) most ultrasonic content in music recordings would be inaudible even if it was reproduced perfectly. Instruments don't generally produce a ton of ultrasound in the first place.

 

[Kachiktoseo]

If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble.

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different.

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different.

 

[Mnyb]

If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble.

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different.

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different.

it's getting worse we have ADC so you cant record anything really

 

[Galliardist]

If every DAC truly sounds different (have their own sound signature), we are in big trouble.

This means once the original analog data is converted into digital data, the same digital data is now going to convert to all sorts of audibly different analog signals because every DAC sounds different.

How can people store the precious analog sound into digital data to destroy the music? Now the true music is forever lost because every DAC sounds different.

Hang on though. Back when we only had vinyl, every turntable/arm/cartridge sounded different.

And that’s not changed today, really. So how can people store this precious sound in analogue?

 

[raif71]

The 1s and 0s are the same coz they are digital in a DAC. It is when the analog waves arrive at your ears that might be different. Traveling distances and bouncing off surfaces that might be different at different location.

 

[Mart68]

Turn your house into a recording studio and invite bands to record there free.

Guaranteed original authentic performances every day - the closest approach to the original sound.

Make money from vending machines and the pool table - although with that, make sure they don't stuff the complimentary magazines into the pockets to avoid paying.

 

[abm0]

Tell you what .... the fun part of Paul's software is that you can null an original music file to the reproduced file and even listen to the null.
When you want to prove it sounds different (do the same with other DACs you have) using music this is the best method to prove that.

Tried that, couldn't see any ripples anymore, just a weird ramp-up in the high treble for the KA17 that didn't match my listening results, though it's mostly happening past 15-ish k, so beyond what I think is my current hearing range. Other than that I could only see that my assumption about the Hiby's filter choice was wrong: it has better, not worse, stopband attenuation, in addition to the better controlled in-band ripples. This ES9281A Pro truly seems to be state-of-the-art DAC tech.

Tried any of the other 7 available filters in the KA17 which should have different passband ripples ?

Yep, no difference in ripples, just early/late rolloff for the filters you'd expect to have differences in rolloff. That suggests the problem is outside of the DAC chip, which was already my assumption: if the ripple-like problem is real, it's in the amplification stage.

But I found something else today, my crucial error: in the first listening test I hooked up the KA17's BAL-out to the E/90x electrostatic energizer via its RCA-ins. Because those are 2 separate connectors I was working under the illusion that the channels are staying completely separate, but the E/90x does NOT have balanced topology, its RCAs have the same ground! So I was effectively shorting the BAL-out's L and R returns together, which leads to easily audible scrunched-in soundstage width and recessed presentation along the depth axis, even compared to the KA17's own SE-out! Then when I said "I hear the same via the HE-400i" I was probably basing that on confirmation bias carried over from the estat listening, as today I don't hear that big difference through the 400i, the FC3 and KA17 sound damn near identical.

I need to redo this listening comparison with much shorter switching time and listening time, so I think I will just record some representative song through both devices and put it through the ABX tool. Also need to re-measure the multitone thing and make sure my cable setup isn't shorting the BAL channels' returns (though I'm pretty sure I didn't have that problem in measurements as I could only ever get one channel at a time connected to the line-in anyway, but it's worth re-checking).

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Tried that, couldn't see any ripples anymore, just a weird ramp-up in the high treble for the KA17 that didn't match my listening results, though it's mostly happening past 15-ish k, so beyond what I think is my current hearing range. Other than that I could only see that my assumption about the Hiby's filter choice was wrong: it has better, not worse, stopband attenuation, in addition to the better controlled in-band ripples. This ES9281A Pro truly seems to be state-of-the-art DAC tech.


Yep, no difference in ripples, just early/late rolloff for the filters you'd expect to have differences in rolloff. That suggests the problem is outside of the DAC chip, which was already my assumption: if the ripple-like problem is real, it's in the amplification stage.

But I found something else today, my crucial error: in the first listening test I hooked up the KA17's BAL-out to the E/90x electrostatic energizer via its RCA-ins. Because those are 2 separate connectors I was working under the illusion that the channels are staying completely separate, but the E/90x does NOT have balanced topology, its RCAs have the same ground! So I was effectively shorting the BAL-out's L and R returns together, which leads to easily audible scrunched-in soundstage width and recessed presentation along the depth axis, even compared to the KA17's own SE-out! Then when I said "I hear the same via the HE-400i" I was probably basing that on confirmation bias carried over from the estat listening, as today I don't hear that big difference through the 400i, the FC3 and KA17 sound damn near identical.

I need to redo this listening comparison with much shorter switching time and listening time, so I think I will just record some representative song through both devices and put it through the ABX tool. Also need to re-measure the multitone thing and make sure my cable setup isn't shorting the BAL channels' returns (though I'm pretty sure I didn't have that problem in measurements as I could only ever get one channel at a time connected to the line-in anyway, but it's worth re-checking).

Which HiBy are we talking about here? Just curious.

 

[abm0]

Which HiBy are we talking about here? Just curious.

FC3 mk1. Hasn't lost a listening comparison vs. any DAC I've put it up against so far, including the desktop-sized iFi Micro iDSD (2015) or recently this highly acclaimed FiiO KA17 with the THX-AAA amplifier in it.